March 9, 2008

Mrs. Clinton “tended to view anyone who criticized her plan, even constructively, as an enemy,” Mr. Bernstein writes, adding that much to the dismay of Senators Bill Bradley and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, she advised Congressional Democrats that “the time had come to ‘demonize’ those who would slow down the health care train for some important roadwork.”

These days, her campaign people acted scandalized when Obama advisor Samantha Power called her a monster. I wonder what is worse — expressing the opinion that someone is a monster or exercising power by threatening to cause the public to think that you are a demon. Demons are worse than monsters, it seems, but that's the least notable difference.

49 comments:

"I wonder what is worse — expressing the opinion that someone is a monster or exercising power by threatening to cause the public to think that you are a demon."

I think the answer is self-evident; one is just simple name calling (even if in fact not true, which seems fanciful, given the target); the other is manifestly worse, and may in fact be evil (e.g., Hitler and the Nazis demonized the Jews - NOT that Hillary! is the moral equivalent of Hitler or the Nazis).

I think Hillary Clinton is a moderate, pragmatic sociopath/megalomaniac.

She isn't interested in radical plans so much as in BIG plans. Just like Mao used to build GIANT dams in China, she wants super-scale reforms to our system. But not necessarily hard-left solutions. Just BIG solutions, that will turn our lives upside down.

Obama wants to turn our lives upside down, and "transform" America so that "we" (he) can be proud of it again, and he's coming from the left. Hillary is coming from the middle.

Which is worse? A president who is an ideologue or a president who has no governing philosophy? To make the choice harder, both want to make big changes to the country. Neither is satisfied to just go to work, and do their job as president, and oversee things, and keep everything flowing smoothly.

Ann, sounds like that fever didn't break in 10 days eh? First she objects to Chelsea being called a whore on TV, now she objects to being called a monster? What next?

I say no more moping. Comtemplating about monsters, demons, pyschopaths, zombies and even tying them to Nazis by Ace Commentator "Tim", isn't going to do the trick. Clearly this woman [or thing] must be stopped at all costs, have you though of phonebanking or donating? You'd think this necessary Slaying of the Beast would be worthy of at least an Obama bumper sticker [that would fit nicely on the new Audi by the way].

It has been part of the Clinton rules to demonize any one who either was against their policies or who they perceived as an enemy. They had people like Sidney Blumenthal do the dirty work.

Of course according to the Clinton political rules, you will not criticize, question, or dare to compete with them. According to their rules, they can do what ever they want to you and get away with it.

Look at how the media has given her a free ride on her experience. They refuse to ask what experience she has. They refuse to verify or fact check her on anything. She complains and bam, Obama is pulic enemy number one to the media.

In effect, we now have before us Hillary Clinton's thirty five years of experience; experience limited to the destruction and demonization of anyone who gets in the way of the Clintons. She is a monster.

from the NYTimes review:“With the notable exception of her husband’s libidinous carelessness,” Mr. Bernstein asserts, “the most egregious errors, strategic and tactical” of his presidency, particularly in its stumbling first year, are “traceable to Hillary,” including, in large measure, the inept staffing of the White House, the disastrous serial search for an attorney general, the Travel Office brouhaha, Whitewater and the alienation of key senators and members of Congress.

Arguably the most troubling incidents in this book relate to Mrs. Clinton’s handling of the administration’s failed health care plan. The outlines of this story have been told many times before — most notably by the former presidential adviser David R. Gergen, who has suggested that Mr. Clinton failed to take control of the health care initiative because he was unwilling to challenge his wife in the wake of reports suggesting that he had used Arkansas state troopers to procure women.

"Libidinous carelessness." Now THAT is funny!

Perhaps we do need this "individual grappling with a complex marriage" back in the White House. Maybe it would be cathartic for the entire nation to have the opportunity to wrestle once again with our 3AM demons. And monsters.

For some, "misunderstanding" is a manifestation of poor education, for others poor intelligence, and for others still just plain willful mis-characterization. While I'm certain those of us with good faith can discern which of the three is worse, I'll leave it to "garage" to explain which of the conditions applies best to him.

"But Hillary, I'm the President, shouldn't these things be up to me -- strategy and tactics, staffing of the White House, choosing an attorney general, dealing with the Travel Office, straightening out the Whitewater mess, and handling key senators and members of Congress?"

"Oh Bill, silly, it's three in the morning. You're not thinking clearly. Here, I'll try to explain it to you one more time: with your personal careless libidinous carelessness issues, I think we both know which of us co-presidents should be the one who is... in charge."

Another reason that her suggestion that she can work with Republicans better than Obama is ridiculous. On the other hand, Obama has no track record in that area either. And, I am sure that some Republicans, at least, remember that one of the first things that she did when her husband was elected president was to pull the FBI files of a large number of prominent Republicans.

Somehow I think that working with the other side will become a non-issue during the general election, when running against the Republican leader of the Gang of 14, co-sponsor of any number of bill with the other side, including McCain-Feingold, Kennedy-McCain, etc.

"Only Barone understands what's happening. Hillary has changed the rules, or more accurately, shredded the rulebook. Like Saddam Hussein after US forces took Baghdad, she has no intention of surrendering after the enemy has taken her capital city no matter what it says in the rulebook. Chait and Morris can continue to believe in the political Geneva Convention, but the game has now changed to 'take no prisoners'.

Barone's key insight is that both Hillary and Obama are now in a position to hold the entire party hostage unless their ambitions are served. "Both candidates have an incentive to attack on grounds that will weaken the other in the general election, as Clinton has already started to do with her 'red phone' ad." In other words, Obama can win the nomination, mayhap -- but Hillary can make sure he wins only at the cost of a subsequent loss to John McCain. If Obama wins in Denver, the Dems lose in November. The Hillary Way or No Way. Osama bin Laden would understand the strategy perfectly."

Do you mean the bipartisanship, or do you mean the radical left-wing "change we can believe in"?

Because the way I see it, bipartisanship (i.e., compromising with Republicans before making big changes) would necessarily result in the "change" being watered down.

And Obama's whole appeal is that he's going to go whole hog. He's supposedly something new and different. If his radical supporters thought he was actually going to compromise and provide a series of half measures, they wouldn't be cheering for him.

So which is it? Bipartisanship, or big, big "change we can believe in" that will allow us to be proud of America? He can't have it both ways.

I saw one of her super-delegates (Gov. Rendell) today on the news and he was asked if he would accept the caucus method in a Michigan re-vote. He quickly answered "no"...because they are undemocratic and unfair to elderly, workers and others. Each group he named btw was a Hillary demographic.

These party minions of the Clintons realize their careers are over if Obama wins, so they are pulling out all the tricks. It will make the Florida 2000 Gore v. Bush look like a walk in the park.

Prediction: 100 years from now, history will show that G.W. Bush, with bipartisan authorization, took the lead in using military force to turn back and eventually defeat radical Islamist terror and preserve Western Civilization.

Hillary doesn't scare me, but my God having to listen to that voice for 4 years!

The hectoring, the nagging, the shrillness. Men hate her voice, and I'm all man. B. Hussain Obama OTOH has a soothing voice and his wife is a hoot. In terms of policy, there isn't a dime worth a difference.